ITAC News.

JeffYoung said:
They are essentially teh same save for spring/shock location. On the Z, the spring/shock is part of the hub assembly; on the Z3 it is on the trailing arm.

Both use large a-frame based trailing arms, and flexible halfshafts. It's essentially the same suspension, the only difference is that on the Z3 the diffcarrier is integral to the "subframe" while on the Z it bolts in/on.

Why should bushings be free on one and not the other? Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I don't think it makes any sense, but to me it makes no more or less sense than if we figured out the z's bushings were open, while mounts like those in the Miata's, and BMW's and other cars that were not part of a subframe were limited to a stock component. Again, I think this further reinforces the need to simply open all mounts/bushings up in term of material.
 
JeffYoung said:
They are essentially teh same save for spring/shock location. On the Z, the spring/shock is part of the hub assembly; on the Z3 it is on the trailing arm.

Both use large a-frame based trailing arms, and flexible halfshafts. It's essentially the same suspension, the only difference is that on the Z3 the diffcarrier is integral to the "subframe" while on the Z it bolts in/on.

Why should bushings be free on one and not the other? Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

As long as we're not moving the motor/transmission/transaxle/differential or using the mountings to stiffen the chassis (ie. motor plates) I'm all for replaceing the material in the motor/transmission/transaxle/differential mounts for some thing less frangible.
 
Again, I think this further reinforces the need to simply open all mounts/bushings up

Which just adds to the expense and complexity of preparing a car in a class who's hallmark has been simplicity and low cost.
Doesn't anyone understand what made this class so good in the first place?
This is a place to be creative with car building, not rulesmaking!:026:
 
pfcs said:
Which just adds to the expense and complexity of preparing a car in a class who's hallmark has been simplicity and low cost.
Doesn't anyone understand what made this class so good in the first place?
This is a place to be creative with car building, not rulesmaking!:026:
Click to expand...
Let's see which is lower cost:

oe mounts $113 per pair
oe transmission mounts $37 per pair
total $150

Vorshlag delrin motor mounts $179 per pair
Vorshlag urethane transmission mounts $89 per pair
total $268

Now oe looks cheaper on the surface, but the oe units are wear items. Less than two sets of oe and I'll have a set that's good for many years of racing.
 
Z3_GoCar said:
Let's see which is lower cost:

oe mounts $113 per pair
oe transmission mounts $37 per pair
total $150

Vorshlag delrin motor mounts $179 per pair
Vorshlag urethane transmission mounts $89 per pair
total $268

Now oe looks cheaper on the surface, but the oe units are wear items. Less than two sets of oe and I'll have a set that's good for many years of racing.
Click to expand...

...but you are severely limiting your perspective on this. You have affordable aftermarket parts available. Others do not. You have parts that seem to fail in stock form. Others do not. You are constraining your ideas to those available aftermarket parts. Others WILL NOT, and in some instance(s) they WILL find ways to build a better mousetrap and gain some marginal advantage. They will also spend a lot more than $268 to do it.

The suspension bushing conversation elsewhere should remind us that it's not possible to write an allowance that someone can't interpret in a creative way.

That said, I do think that engine mounts are within the established philosophical playing field for the category. The problem is that an engine mount rule would be subject to the same kind of interpretive challenges as the rest of our rules.

K
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
lmao
Click to expand...

I guess I forgot how simple-minded and myopic so many in this community are when considering these issues. I find it odd that Andy finds this amusing when I assumed he appreciated the ramifications. It was not my intention to be amusing.
Kirk-thank you for stating what should be obvious to anyone who seriously practices race car development and the rules interface.
 
Last edited:
Next ITAC call: 8/23/10

Our next ITAC call will be next Monday, August 23rd.

The agenda looks pretty straightforward. On the rule change front, we'll try to close out the issue we have out for member input now, which is about allowing stock ABS in ITR. For those who wrote in, thank you for your input! We have one other letter requesting an allowance for aftermarket control arms.

Then we have 8 letters to discuss with respect to new car classifications, and I'm pretty confident we'll come out of the meeting with (at least) 7 new listings in IT, including a couple in ITC. A list:

  • '05-'06 Toyota Corolla XRS
  • '06 Mazda MX-5
  • '06 Chevy Cobalt SS
  • '06 Pontiac Solstice
  • '06 Honda Civic Si
  • '91-'94 Toyota Tercel
  • '92-'93 Mazda MX-3
Finally, we have 4 requests to update or clarify existing spec lines.

As always, please contact me if you have anything you'd like to discuss with respect to IT, or feel free to submit a letter through http://www.crbscca.com.
 
thanks josh for continuing the updates. I think I speak for all when I say they are very much appreciated.

I have a rule change request I have to finish up, hopefully I'll get it through the crbscca.com tonight, otherwise I'll email it directly to you all to initiate discussion on. involves the thickness fo a head gasket...
 
Why are you all looking at reclassifying cars if your hands are still tied? When will the verbage come through that allows reclassifying cars that obviously should be?
 
I'm told that you can expect to see the first step of the rule change in the September Fastrack, which is due out on Monday.
 
Update from August 2010 ITAC call

On last night's call, we resolved 17 of your letters and kept 4 of them tabled pending more research.

As we have been discussing, the Fastrack published yesterday included a proposed rule change that will definitely have some effect on nearly every IT driver. Please weigh in with your input at http://www.crbscca.com. Doing it here is good for discussion but many people who should see it will not unless it is directed through the proper channels.

Contained with in those 17 resolved letters are recommendations to the CRB that we add 7 new listings (2 in ITR, 3 in ITS, and 2 in ITC) and that we extend the model years of 13 existing listings, up through 2006 where appropriate. The 2006 models won't be eligible for competition until 2011 but this will allow you to get started on builds.

If all goes according to plan, the details should be in the October Fastrack, due out in about a month.

As always, I'm available to talk directly about anything you desire in the scope of IT.
 
Hey Josh,

Did you get my letter via the CRB letter link regarding the 300zx? I can't find a notice of it being received and just wanted to make sure I didn't screw something up. Thanks
 
Tristan Smith said:
Did you get my letter via the CRB letter link regarding the 300zx? I can't find a notice of it being received and just wanted to make sure I didn't screw something up. Thanks
Click to expand...

Yes, it's letter #2501. You can track the status on the crbscca.com site using the letter number. The e-mail attached to it is your turner.com address. If you didn't get the automated e-mails, maybe they got caught up in a spam filter?
 
Ok thanks, for the speedy reply. Appreciate it. You are more than likely right about the spam filter. We have a pretty thorough one here!
 
Last edited:
Just a reminder: please provide your feedback to the CRB/BOD about the ITAC's rule change recommendation allowing weights of old IT listings to be changed (letter #1767). You can find the details and justification about the proposal in the September Fastrack, including the specific wording recommended for the GCR. The CRB meets next week they are preparing for the upcoming BOD meeting, and the more feedback available at those two meetings, the better!

You can submit feedback at http://www.crbscca.com
September Fastrack is here: http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-fastrack-sept.pdf -- proposal is on page 10.

Thanks!

Josh
 
Last edited:
done. #2636

CRB, BOD, ITAC, September 5, 2010
I am writing in support of the changes per item # 1767 in the September, 2010 FasTrack.
This is long overdue. I wrote a letter in November 2008 stating that I was in favor of the use of a “Process” and used my 1986 Honda CRX Si in ITB as an example of why this was necessary and why it needed to be adjusted. Please note that the 85-87 CRX Si was moved from ITA to ITB per the March 2005 Fastrack. At that time, the car was given an arbitrary 150 # adjustment.
That note resulted in future letter writing and requests. I received emails and personal messages from ITAC members regarding that things were progressing slowly and that the broader issue of using the process for other cars needed to be addressed. It was my understanding that when that part of the “Process” was completed, my car would be considered and that there was the potential for a weight reduction.
Then many of the ITAC members resigned and the CRB adopted an improved tracking method for responding to member requests. I then filed another request.
Imagine my surprise when after literally years of on again and off again requests and correspondence my last response was denied saying I had failed to meet the 4 year deadline. That was unfair. My original request was easily within the 4 year deadline.
This use of “rules” was completely inappropriate considering that the same rules had said that “At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated.” I challenge the ITAC to publish the meeting minutes and the results of the evaluations for not just my car but for any car.

I feel that I met the requirements of the rules by requesting my car be evaluated within the 4 year deadline and that I should not be punished for the disruption of the ITAC and the poor tracking of requests by the CRB. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any “appeals” process to follow short of leaving for NASA’s Performance Touring.

I see the proposed rule change as a means to not only make adjustments to ITB where some cars have been classed with the process and others have been classed by guestimates but it will also be a ruleset that will allow for adjustments as future cars are classified.

And to borrow a line from the November 23, 2008 request:

“Thanks in advance for your consideration”

Tom
Click to expand...
 
gran racing said:
Just curious if there have been any updates such as if it has been presented to the BOD.
Click to expand...

i am expecting something in the next fastrack per these updates:

9/11

Your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and a recommendation has been made to the CRB. The CRB will review your letter and the IT committee's recommendation on their next conference call. Your letter details are below:

Letter #2636
Title: Support of Item # 1767
Click to expand...

Your letter has been reviewed by the Club Racing Board. The response will be in an upcoming Fastrack. Your letter details are below:

Letter #2636
Title: Support of Item # 1767
Click to expand...

9/15

Your letter has been reviewed by the CRB and the response will be in the October FasTrack. The FasTrack will be posted on the SCCA website on the 20th of this month.
Click to expand...

we'll see what monday brings..........

most likely a bartle and james type response of "thank you for your support...."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top